Recharacterizing Libertarianism Without Moral Realism

What is 'moral realism'? Many might think it sounds foreign or vaguely archaic, but it's a term used to denote the belief that certain moral truths are objective and independent of human societies or individuals. In contrast, 'moral idealism' is a term that is rarely used and seems to have no clear meaning or adherents. So, in this context, 'moral realism' is effectively unopposed, often leaving us questioning the relevance or utility of such a concept.

Libertarianism: A Systems Scientist's Perspective

As a libertarian and a systems scientist, my belief in libertarian principles comes from a systems perspective. The ability to comprehend the underlying systems that govern society and behavior allows me to envision political scenarios that could potentially operate more efficiently than the current ones. Libertarianism, in this sense, could be characterized as a form of utilitarian optimization, where the goal is to improve the well-being of individuals within the system.

Utilitarianism primarily focuses on the maximization of happiness or well-being, and in a libertarian framework, this can be seen as a way to foster individual freedom and responsibility. However, under this perspective, it is critical to question the assumptions about what constitutes happiness and well-being. Just because individuals feel better does not necessarily mean they are better off from a broader, systemic standpoint.

Optimizing for groups may require a consensus on certain truths, independent of individuals. This approach is often aligned with a form of moral realism, where certain moral truths are considered objective and binding. However, if we remove the assumption of moral realism, we must explore alternative methodologies that can still lead to optimization and consensus-building without relying on objective moral truths.

Challenges and Implications

Characterizing libertarianism without assuming moral realism poses significant challenges. The normative component of libertarianism, which includes principles like individual autonomy and limited government intervention, requires a framework for moral reasoning. If we remove the assumption of objective moral truths, we must explore other ways to determine and enforce these principles.

One potential approach is to focus on cooperative systems where mutual understanding and agreement are the foundations of decision-making. In this framework, the focus shifts from absolute moral truths to agreed-upon rules and norms that are beneficial for the overall system. This can be seen as a form of relational morality where the context and interpersonal relationships are the primary determinants of right and wrong.

Another approach could involve utilitarian optimization without moral realism. In this model, the goal would be to create a system that maximizes overall well-being without relying on objective moral truths. This could involve using data and empirical evidence to inform decision-making, ensuring that policies and actions are based on objective outcomes rather than subjective moral judgments.

Conclusion

The recharacterization of libertarianism without moral realism is a complex and challenging task. While it may be difficult to entirely separate the normative component of libertarianism from moral realism, alternative frameworks exist that can still achieve the goals of individual freedom and systemic optimization. By focusing on relational morality and utilitarian optimization, we can explore new ways to build and maintain systems that promote well-being and cooperation without relying on objective moral truths.

Thus, while libertarianism may be characterized as a form of utilitarian optimization, it does not require the assumption of moral realism. By embracing alternative methodologies and focusing on cooperative systems and data-driven outcomes, we can reaffirm the principles of libertarianism in a way that is consistent with a systems scientist's perspective.